The irony is the current federal government wants to shut this all down, because coal is evil.
In the meantime, Saskatchewan – Regina, Estevan and Weyburn – showed off its decades of experience to worldwide experts on carbon capture, utilization and storage as they set international standards for the same.
New standards of pointlessness? Better than no standards, I guess, and these techniques might well find actual valuable use. So, one-and-a-half cheers at least to you guys! You’re a credit to Saskatchewan, if not necessarily a carbon credit.
As the saying goes, “Sequester and you shall find westerners”.
Go sequester, young man, haven’t you been told, government coffers are full of women, whiskey and gold.
H
But for something as economically as valuable it would be worth a pipeline to the ocean instead of that bad oil. LOL
A long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long pipe to the Ocean.
Carbon capture is just a hard sell for me and as yet no one’s put forth a convincing argument.
Assuming carbon dioxide is the big climate change boogie man everyone claims it is, exactly how much change do you think you can make if emissions in the west keep increasing and the world’s biggest emitter China doesn’t give a damn and never will.
Like emptying your pool with a teaspoon.
Someone’s making money and it surely isn’t me. Good for Sask. is one way of looking at it I guess.
Carbon capture is capitulation to CAGW. Full on capitulation to the absurdity that a micro-trace element in the earth’s atmosphere is the main driver of climate change … of a climate that has been FOREVER cycling and changing regardless of carbon concentration in the atmosphere. “Bad” Co2 is a LIE. It is the fundamentalist tenet of the Global Warming religion.
Shame on ANY “Oil man” who cheers this absurdity. Period.
It’s like accepting Gay “Marriage” … in the belief it will quell the gays and satisfy the Queers. When in fact it has simply empowered their sickness. Moved their sickness into our children’s classrooms … where the kids are heavily proselytized about Transgenderism … and manmade Global Warming.
Give an inch, they take a mile … and then some.
Unless justified by economically enhanced recovery, the ultimate result is more expensive energy and a trivial reduction of increased atmospheric CO2 by global measure. Trying to please your enemies…… who want you out of business. The value of ISO is in the voluntary nature of organizations seeking its certification. When the state incorporates it into regulation, think CSA and related corruption.
CO2 is not a pollutant or climate driver and nothing has to be done about it. Every breath you take.
Too bloody stupid to realize that today’s carbon capture ‘achievements’ will be tomorrow’s cudgel.
With all that experience, perhaps one of the geniuses involved with this nonsense could give us a detailed study of the actual effect on the weather. Vast amounts of money have been spent, so I would like to know if it has been value for money.
The study should include details of how any changes they have measured in the weather can be attributed to this, as opposed to natural variation.
I won’t hold my breath.
Tell ’em you want the same deal quebek has with California. There’s lots of money to spread around
No one will benefit from the adoption of such circular technology. JM Keynes once proposed similar idiocy: pay some people to bury banknotes at the bottom of abandoned mine shafts so that the economy could “stimulated” by other people expending effort to dig them up.
Greenhouse experiments show:
1. The optimum CO2 concentration for maximum growth of woody plants is ~1000 ppm.
(That’s because when woody plants evolved, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was ~1000 ppm).
2. When the level of CO2 falls below ~150 ppm, all woody plants plants die.
Ice core data shows:
1. During the last Ice Age (~20,000 years ago), the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was only ~190 ppm.
2. By ~10,000 years ago, the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere had only risen to ~280 ppm.
Today we are at ~425 ppm.
These people are insane.
Saskatchewan should ‘weaponize’ this. Threaten the greenies that we will release the carbon if they don’t (do or stop) whatever they’re doing that Sask doesn’t like. [sarcasm, of course]
If CO2 falls to 150 ppm, we all die not just f*****g plants and trees.
I’ve been a very satisfied customer for Free Carbon Credit for over 30 years. Why pay for more than you need to? http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do
“Carbon capture” is one of the those terms I refuse to devote not a single minute of my time to understand because it just sounds so totally ******* stupid, accomplishes literally nothing, AND IS A TOTAL COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY. Like digging a hole for no reason and filling it back in with the same dirt over and over again. Reminds me of “intersectionality”, another made up term I refuse to acknowledge and will never use.
“Part of the policy efforts behind tax credits and other things like that is basically to encourage people to be able to make the expenditures to store it.”
Nice try Mr.Van Voorhees. It’s there because the “commodity” you claim that has “value” isn’t worth a bucket of spit to corporations, if it did they’d be on it like stink. As always, it’s Joe Taxpayer who has to pony up the cash to get rid of it.
Weekly garbage collection only on a bigger scale. And I think we all know who pays for that.
Okay, some of you might wonder why anyone would support carbon capture. In Saskatchewan, it means enhanced oil recovery. A typical oil well will get say 10 per cent recovery from putting a pump on it. Do waterflood, and you might get say 20 per cent of the original oil in place. But with carbon dioxide flood, like the Weyburn Unit I was just at this morning, you are pushing 40 per cent recovery, and more. The Weyburn oilfield would have all but dried up 15 years ago or so without CO2. It’s now been in operation for 65 years, and may continue pumping oil for another 40 – maybe more. My kid is going to work partially in that field. And she could get a career out of it, as long as the CO2 keeps flowing. So whatever your thoughts are on supposed manmade climate change, CO2 can extend the life of almost every oilfield out there. If you want to add decades of recoverable reserves, initiate a CO2 flood. And THAT’s why it’s significant to Saskatchewan.
Okay, some of you might wonder why anyone would support carbon capture. In Saskatchewan, it means enhanced oil recovery.
Fantastic! So get those who really want it pay for it. I mean, we’re going to pay for it anyways. If corporations require subsidies or “tax credits” to get it out of the ground, count me out, cause frankly, we’re tapped out. I know carbon capture has some practical uses in the real world… but I’m not on this Earth to provide your daughter or anyone else with a job.
Harsh as that may be.
Carbon capture is as useful as nailing a fart to a board.
Neither effort will have any effect on temperature, ever.
Do it a 100 quadrillion times, still the same result.
You’d of course be poorer, which is maybe the real goal.
I mean, who needs shorter hospital wait times, or whatever actual productive thing you could do with those funds.
What is the total cost of “ captured “ carbon dioxide used in the wells. That must be added into the other costs of enhanced recovery. If the total costs of the enhanced recovery oil is greater than the world oil price, it would be better for consumers to just buy on the world market, and forget the “ enhanced recovery.”
This sounds like the typical Liberal make- work programs, designed to get people to support Liberal policies that on net use taxpayer money to create “ jobs” that are just elaborate re-distribution schemes.
This technology could be called Unicorn Flatulence Sequestration and it would be essentially the same thing as these clowns are attempting with so-called “carbon capture.”
Some places just pump the CO2 deep underground. No oil recovery. I’d like to know the amount of CO2 released by coal-fired powerplants generating the electricity needed to separate CO2 from the air and pump the stuff underground. I’m wondering if they’re generating 1000 pounds of CO2 to isolate and bury 850 pounds, maybe. I wouldn’t be surprised. Most of this sort of green stuff makes no scientific or mathematical sense.
Follow, the science, they keep saying. NO. Follow the money. That explains it all.
Correction: Follow the ‘political’ science.
Once you accept that carbon capture is desirable, is a good thing, is required, then you have accepted the insane premises of the climate religion and have utterly lost the argument.
Carbon capture is insanity.